That’s a dumb question for a proud agnostic, so, of course not.
Btw, hopefully this “science denial” is blatant enough for you to show me what you’re speaking of.
This is really funny. There’s assuredly a 95% overlap in our views about science (save for some non-trivial epistemological differences), yet on the basis of one subject where you are the less-informed party, you’ve assumed the cliche reactionary stance that you are arguing with a cable-swapping, flat-earth believing rod-dowser. This is irrational behavior you’re exhibiting, fueled as much by a lack or curiosity as it is good old-fashioned prejudice.
Btw, hopefully this “science denial” is blatant enough for you to show me what you’re speaking of.
This is really funny. There’s assuredly a 95% overlap in our views about science (save for some non-trivial epistemological differences), yet on the basis of one subject where you are the less-informed party, you’ve assumed the cliche reactionary stance that you are arguing with a cable-swapping, flat-earth believing rod-dowser. This is irrational behavior you’re exhibiting, fueled as much by a lack or curiosity as it is good old-fashioned prejudice.
Last edited:
So you're not a creationist. That's the science denial I was referring to; the denial of evolution.
As far as not knowing anything about UFOs, engineers do learn about physics, and rocket science is physics; so an engineer could make qualified comments on topics related to flight mechanics.
As far as not knowing anything about UFOs, engineers do learn about physics, and rocket science is physics; so an engineer could make qualified comments on topics related to flight mechanics.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Didn’t weigh in on that subject (don’t care) just like the FTL stuff (don’t care), alien visitations (boring), whether life is abundant in the universe (ditto), cable swapping threads (ditto) and audibility of resistors-type threads (derp).
So again, I don’t understand how science denial has anything to do with what I said.
Last edited:
I see the new disco pete is still asserting, incorrectly, that science is a belief....
Last edited:
I think Brinkman has shown a lot of savvy here. He may not be as technically savvy but has an open mind and very good intuition and instincts about the world. He also is smart enough to know when people are hiding behind technical savvy and not really understanding something. There can be huge differences. Einstein once said and I'm paraphrasing "Anybody can know something. What is important is understanding it."
I think a lot of us understand that many here are just arguing about UFO's from a "knowing" posture and do not care to try to understand why the appearances have persisted and what might be behind them. So what's the difference between "knowing" UFOs don't exist and any form of religion that believes (for example) that a particular man once rose from the dead? In both cases people "know" without scientific evidence.
I think a lot of us understand that many here are just arguing about UFO's from a "knowing" posture and do not care to try to understand why the appearances have persisted and what might be behind them. So what's the difference between "knowing" UFOs don't exist and any form of religion that believes (for example) that a particular man once rose from the dead? In both cases people "know" without scientific evidence.
Nope. The only people that are claiming knowledge here are the religious ones who claim they do not really exist in spite of persistent evidence. They "know" without evidence.
On the other hand the opposing side is just accepting the evidence and want to understand it. I suppose that's inconvenient to hear.
On the other hand the opposing side is just accepting the evidence and want to understand it. I suppose that's inconvenient to hear.
You're stating/assuming too much. I never said science was a belief. My assertion is that lacking factual evidence for a hypothesis requires belief in it's validity. Even if it's "probably" correct.
Thus empiricist handwaiving of what counts as evidence by winnowing the goal posts to physical evidence exclusively, in support of a predetermined conclusion.
" I must be cruel only to be kind; Thus bad begins, and worse remains behind." - Thomas Jefferson
No, that’s not correct, this is Jefferson: “it was easier to believe that two Yankee professors could lie than to admit that stones could fall from heaven.”
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
That’s just another belief 😀
I'd very much like to know what’s behind them. I think everyone does. I want to know what these sightings are, what they are about, but I want knowledge, not the produce of a fertile imagination, no hiding behind “if only you had an open mind you’d believe us” nonsense from some of the posters here.
Last edited:
Do I really have to tell you one does not get to proceed directly to “knowledge”?
Some of the arguments being issued here assert (incorrectly) that no evidence exists and even fewer are taking the baby steps that are requisite for the “knowledge” we seek.
Some of the arguments being issued here assert (incorrectly) that no evidence exists and even fewer are taking the baby steps that are requisite for the “knowledge” we seek.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
baby steps! What baby steps…. we’ve been reading about ufo’s ever since ghosts and witches went out of fashion, decades at least. Back then, there were sightings, eventually some fuzzy images. Where are we today? some sightings and some fuzzy images. Nothing has changed, nada, no steps towards knowledge at all. Some are even resorting to the usual game of blaming the government for hiding the real knowledge in their desperation to confirm a belief that steps have been achieved.
Last edited:
@Bigun
Why are you so sure about everything? You don't seem to have an intellectually modest bone in your body. Without being too insulting have you heard of the Dunning Kruger effect? It would do you good to read about it if you haven't. At the very least you should stop insulting everyone who says something you don't understand, like your ignorance of gluons having mass.
At the very least you should quit spouting nonsense and get a grip.
Why are you so sure about everything? You don't seem to have an intellectually modest bone in your body. Without being too insulting have you heard of the Dunning Kruger effect? It would do you good to read about it if you haven't. At the very least you should stop insulting everyone who says something you don't understand, like your ignorance of gluons having mass.
At the very least you should quit spouting nonsense and get a grip.
Who here says that? That's tantamount to claiming all the photos and films have been faked.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.